Capacity Evaluation of Diagnostic Tests For COVID-19 Using Multicriteria Decision-Making Techniques.
Betacoronavirus
COVID-19
COVID-19 Testing
Clinical Laboratory Techniques
/ methods
Coronavirus Infections
/ diagnosis
Decision Making
Fuzzy Logic
Humans
Immunoglobulin G
Models, Statistical
Pandemics
Pneumonia, Viral
/ diagnosis
Program Evaluation
Reproducibility of Results
SARS-CoV-2
Sensitivity and Specificity
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Journal
Computational and mathematical methods in medicine
ISSN: 1748-6718
Titre abrégé: Comput Math Methods Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101277751
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
11
05
2020
revised:
22
06
2020
accepted:
07
07
2020
entrez:
18
8
2020
pubmed:
18
8
2020
medline:
1
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In December 2019, cases of pneumonia were detected in Wuhan, China, which were caused by the highly contagious coronavirus. This study is aimed at comparing the confusion regarding the selection of effective diagnostic methods to make a mutual comparison among existing SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests and at determining the most effective one. Based on available published evidence and clinical practice, diagnostic tests of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) were evaluated by multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, namely, fuzzy preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (fuzzy PROMETHEE) and fuzzy technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (fuzzy TOPSIS). Computerized tomography of chest (chest CT), the detection of viral nucleic acid by polymerase chain reaction, cell culture, CoV-19 antigen detection, CoV-19 antibody IgM, CoV-19 antibody IgG, and chest X-ray were evaluated by linguistic fuzzy scale to compare among the diagnostic tests. This scale consists of selected parameters that possessed different weights which were determined by the experts' opinions of the field. The results of our study with both proposed MCDM methods indicated that the most effective diagnosis method of COVID-19 was chest CT. It is interesting to note that the methods that are consistently used in the diagnosis of viral diseases were ranked in second place for the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, each country should use appropriate diagnostic solutions according to its own resources. Our findings also show which diagnostic systems can be used in combination.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32802146
doi: 10.1155/2020/1560250
pmc: PMC7411452
doi:
Substances chimiques
Immunoglobulin G
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1560250Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Murat Sayan et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Références
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Feb 07;69(5):140-146
pubmed: 32027631
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1708-1720
pubmed: 32109013
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 28;71(15):778-785
pubmed: 32198501
Radiology. 2011 Jul;260(1):18-39
pubmed: 21697307
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Apr;20(4):425-434
pubmed: 32105637
Chin Med J (Engl). 2020 May 5;133(9):1015-1024
pubmed: 32004165
JAMA. 2020 Feb 7;:
pubmed: 32031568
Eur J Radiol. 2020 May;126:108961
pubmed: 32229322
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497-506
pubmed: 31986264
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E32-E40
pubmed: 32101510
J Med Virol. 2020 Mar 30;:
pubmed: 32227490
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 26;:
pubmed: 32222164
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E41-E45
pubmed: 32049601
Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):
pubmed: 31992387
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20;382(8):727-733
pubmed: 31978945
J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Feb 24;35(7):e84
pubmed: 32080990
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E46-E54
pubmed: 32155105
Pathogens. 2020 Mar 20;9(3):
pubmed: 32245083
Nat Microbiol. 2020 Apr;5(4):536-544
pubmed: 32123347
Int J Biol Sci. 2020 Mar 15;16(10):1753-1766
pubmed: 32226295
Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):507-513
pubmed: 32007143
Radiology. 2020 Aug;296(2):E115-E117
pubmed: 32073353